-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: MrIntelligentDesign started by The whole truth

Posted by: The whole truth on Sep. 30 2015,06:36

The thread for Edgar Postrado to describe and debate "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design".
Posted by: The whole truth on Sep. 30 2015,06:45

So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Sep. 30 2015,06:58

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45)

So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thank you for this thread.

I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?

I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...

But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.

I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.

BACKGROUNDBefore the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.

NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINEHere is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) orIf the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) orIf the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example: 1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.

Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.

If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more… ___Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.

[I][B][/B][B]
Posted by: The whole truth on Sep. 30 2015,07:21

"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Sep. 30 2015,07:36

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)

"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, that is the problem for almost 2000 years of span of human history in knowing nature! We just don't know if there is a principle that could govern the existence of any X in the topic of origins and cause and effect!

The result? 60+ definitions of intelliogence!

Darwin and all of the best scientists had forgotten to solve this before they concluded many things/explanations in science![B]
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 30 2015,07:44

Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 30 2015,08:13

Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID". Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 30 2015,11:46

Welcome, Edgar Postrado.
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 30 2015,11:52

Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 30 2015,12:00

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)

Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Started? You mean with something that doesn't look more like a sales pitch than it does an explanation of something in science?
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 30 2015,14:45

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... four of which don't even exist.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 30 2015,14:56

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... four of which don't even exist.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not unlike his science.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 30 2015,16:43

edit: JohnW beated me.

Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 30 2015,18:51

After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2015,20:35

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)

After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A program where grammar is an emergent property?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 30 2015,21:17

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)

After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A program where grammar is an emergent property?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That could be done in LISP.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 30 2015,22:12

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 30 2015,21:17)

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)

After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A program where grammar is an emergent property?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That could be done in LISP.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Languages are like organisms. If they were intelligently designed, they'd be a hell of a lot more efficient and easier to understand.
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 30 2015,22:24

Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2015,01:07

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

MrIntelligentDesign, I, and I presume the scientific community as well are looking forward to seeing how you calculate CSI since it has not been possible to get that from the mainstream IDiots.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2015,01:35

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,21:00)

Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:56

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 30 2015,07:44)

Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have the scientific explanation of intelligence that could categorize if X is intellen or naturen.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:57

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)

Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID". Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 30 2015,11:46)

Welcome, Edgar Postrado.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thank you.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:59

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)

Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:01

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…---------------------QUOTE-------------------

... four of which don't even exist.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What I said and claimed was that we can now know if any X is intellen or naturen. Why we need to know the difference? Because we are explaining nature and reality in naturalistic science.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:04

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,23:00)

Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, good! You are pretty close!

In theory (I'm using the word theory here in a colloquial manner) yes, but there is also a limit of intelligence that I did not yet share here.

Naturen is always symmetrical like 10/10...and intellen is asymmetrical like 15/10 but there is always an above limit of asymmetrical and above limit of symmetrical that I've discovered...

Do you get it? I will explain later if you did not get it...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:06

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,01:07)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

MrIntelligentDesign, I, and I presume the scientific community as well are looking forward to seeing how you calculate CSI since it has not been possible to get that from the mainstream IDiots.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

CSI = complex specified information from Dembski? Well, I discovered a limit for intelligence. I called it iProb...Next time, I will share it here and you will see how nature and reality works...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)

Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID". Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ADD'L info:

Yes, my newly discovered intelligence is universal in application since existence and the topic of origin and cause and effect are universal..
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Oct. 01 2015,05:54

I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 01 2015,05:58

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)

"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, you've said various things, and no, I don't get you now.

Frankly, you haven't said anything yet that is worth getting. Are you going to present evidence and a coherent explanation of how that evidence supports 'intelligent design'?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,06:02

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 01 2015,05:54)

I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As I said that Gary's ID is not talking about intelligence but only a natural phenomenon even though you may understand his idea.

Mine is different.

Once you understand my idea, you will see that it works all the time since there will be no other intelligence besides my new discovery.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,06:06

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 01 2015,05:58)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)

"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, you've said various things, and no, I don't get you now.

Frankly, you haven't said anything yet that is worth getting. Are you going to present evidence and a coherent explanation of how that evidence supports 'intelligent design'?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You never yet knew my new discovery and its application.

As I said that my new discovery is based on the classification and categorization between intellen and naturen, do you follow me here?

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen. The new <id> said that there is.

Now, can you get the picture?
Posted by: fusilier on Oct. 01 2015,06:41

From the Uncommonly Dense thread, Mr.IntelligentDesign wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------LOL!!!

I've been living here in Japan for 23 years! NO ENGRISH EVERIDI! I am here in the land of the Rising Sun!

Thus, forgive me for my bad grammars but I think most of my posts are understandable. I wish that you or anyone of you who has perfect grammars could discover the real intelligence, but this discovery was put onto my shoulder. What should I do? I had to do it alone since you never yet buy my science books or send me grants for support. SEND ME GRANTS, TAXES and SUPPORTS and I will reedit all my books to satisfy your language. And see how those discoveries could blow your scientific and intellectual minds!

But one thing I can sure of: I maybe have bad grammars but I have the best science. That is for sure for if now, why should I waste my time here claiming something??? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've offered this before, winner/winfield/MrIntelligentDesign - Send me your Japanese text, and I'll have Daughter #2 translate it. It will take longer than when I first offered, several years ago, since she's working in the cardio/ortho surgery suite at a hospital in Wisconsin. (She left Apple about the time you stopped regular posting at CARM.)

romanji, please, since I can't be sure how kanji will come across when printed.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 01 2015,07:21

Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?

If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?

Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right? All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment. However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel. < http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif >< http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg >< http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg >Does that make deltas intellen?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,07:44

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 01 2015,07:21)

Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?

If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?

Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right? All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment. However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel. < http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif >< http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg >< http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg >Does that make deltas intellen?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Interesting examples:

1. Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?ME: No. Inventing a paperclip to hold papers is not intellen since it follows this rationalization:

problem = paperclip, solution = paper clip.

That is simply a symmetrical phenomenon, a naturen.

But the paper clip becomes intellen if you, the inventor, will make it safer and better than an ordinary paper clip, thus, you are an IA.

Your buddy is not an intellen since there is NO problem to that example in where he could use intelligence.

As I said and claimed that intelligence is always being used by any intelligent agent (IA) in origin and cause and effect.

2. If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?ME: No, since you are not doing intelligent work anyway. You are just only following this symmetrical phenomenon:

problem? order from bosssolution? follow the boss

That is naturen or a natural phenomenon. But you will become an IA who if you think of a system (X) and give that system a reinforcements X' of more than two) so that the system (X) could function well. That system (X) is intellen.

3. Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right? ME: Yes.

4. All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment. However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel. < http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif >< http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg >< http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg >Does that make deltas intellen?ME: Where is the problem there? Where is the solution? Where is the origin?

Next time, I will share to you on how to use INTELLIGENCE in real application.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 01 2015,08:21

Utter nonsense.

Your paperclip example from page 1 is worse than absurd -- it smuggles in a "fact" that is anything but factual.One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong.Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems. Yes, in decimal arithmetic using the arabic numerals, the 'problem' of 1 + 1 has only one solution, 2. But 1 + 1 is not really a problem, 2 is not really a solution, 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition.

Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store? Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?

Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous. Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness. The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful.

Based on what we've seen so far, you're not even going to be up for an Ignobel.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,08:50

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,08:21)

Utter nonsense.

Your paperclip example from page 1 is worse than absurd -- it smuggles in a "fact" that is anything but factual.One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong.Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems. Yes, in decimal arithmetic using the arabic numerals, the 'problem' of 1 + 1 has only one solution, 2. But 1 + 1 is not really a problem, 2 is not really a solution, 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition.

Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store? Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?

Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous. Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness. The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful.

Based on what we've seen so far, you're not even going to be up for an Ignobel.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please, before you post...can you clarify something?

Are you talking about ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT?? Or are you just talking about solving problems only????

Are you referring to different kind of "intelligence" that is universal, scientific and better than my new discovery??? Do you have that?

When I said problem-solution, I am using it in the topic of ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT since this is where I applied intelligence since the real intelligence is applicable there.

Of course, I knew that "One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong."

And

I agreed that "Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems."

But I always used that in context of my new discoveries (of ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT) since you cannot understand that problem-solution phenomenon if you will never follow my new discoveries...

"Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store? Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?" ---ME: I don't get it..where did you base that?

"Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous. Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness. The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful." ME: You mean naturen...OK, I got it. Yes, naturen is always a symmetrical phenomenon and as I said that it has a range and I will share it later...

You knew, once you claimed that my new discoveries about real intelligence and categorization between naturen and intellen is wrong, you are thinking to yourself that you have an idea that is scientifically right...an alternative explanation, maybe.

GOOD. Maybe you are the one who could help me delete all my science books in Amazons and videos in Youtube...Let us compare. Let us see who is right..and please, don't just say that I am a fool without sharing your alternative explanation about the real intelligence...

If I'm wrong, FOR STARTER, then, tell me, WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE? I need an universal, obvious, simple, applicable to all X in the topic of origins and cause and effect, scientific, with experiments or empirical evidences...

LET US COMPARE...OK??

If not, I need your apology to me...choose..

Give me the real and universal intelligence in naturalistic science that is realistic or give me a sincere apology...

Which one is easy for you?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 01 2015,08:56

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)

Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID". Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".---------------------QUOTE-------------------

---------------------QUOTE-------------------LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How many points is this worth on the crack pot index? I forget.

Anyway.

MrID, one, I note that you failed to actually the question. It's not a hard question and it's a serious question for people who actually study intelligence. We only have one real example of intelligence, the fact that we argue constantly about the intelligence of some apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids is just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is.

So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is. Yet you haven't tried to explain it. Why are intelligence researchers wrong? What evidence do you have to support that answer? Why are you right? What evidence do you have to support that answer?

I find it amusing that someone who claims to have found "real intelligence" can't answer some fundamental questions about science.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 01 2015,08:59

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This look like it is beyond the reach of a normal brain. But that doesn't bother me, I take it as a sign that my brain still is okay.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,09:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:56)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)

Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID". Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".---------------------QUOTE-------------------

---------------------QUOTE-------------------LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How many points is this worth on the crack pot index? I forget.

Anyway.

MrID, one, I note that you failed to actually the question. It's not a hard question and it's a serious question for people who actually study intelligence. We only have one real example of intelligence, the fact that we argue constantly about the intelligence of some apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids is just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is.

So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is. Yet you haven't tried to explain it. Why are intelligence researchers wrong? What evidence do you have to support that answer? Why are you right? What evidence do you have to support that answer?

I find it amusing that someone who claims to have found "real intelligence" can't answer some fundamental questions about science.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

OK, the the topic that we are discussing is very difficult, so difficult that scientist all over the world thought that intelligence is not part in science especially in Biology, Physics..etc..

I've already answered you. Did you not read it?

What are you talking about when you said "...We only have one real example of intelligence"?

Oh, so you are following ToE's errors...how do you know if these animals " apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids " that you've posted use instinct and not intelligence? What is the dividing line between "instinct" and "intelligence"?

Of course that "...just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is. " you really don't know intelligence.

I repeat the answer to your question "So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?" One sample is enough when we talk about existence.

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is. ME: Please, read at the OP. "Intelligence is a principle..."

Yet you haven't tried to explain it. ME: Do you understand the definition?

Why are intelligence researchers wrong? ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence.

What evidence do you have to support that answer? ME: I already gave you an empirical evidence. Do you think you use intelligence when you eat because you are hungry? If the answer is No, then, you knew already what is a natural phenomenon...and natural phenomenon is always symmetrical phenomenon...DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Why are you right? ME: Because I have science, I have empirical evidence and my new discoveries are too obvious and too simple and yet universal...

What evidence do you have to support that answer? ME: I already gave you one example of empirical evidence that you do it everyday...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,09:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 01 2015,09:32

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien. Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe. For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 01 2015,09:37

What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?Give 3 examples to support your definition.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering any given entity, process, or event 'intelligent'?

What evidence supports your various assertions, such as the alleged fact that the theory of evolution as 'ruled out' intelligence, in any form?

The question is under what conditions, for what items, is 'intelligence' a factor which must be considered as a possible element?

What evidence exists that 'intelligence' in your specific meaning could or should be taken to be a factor in, say, the origin of species in all cases?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 01 2015,11:59

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,07:32)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien. Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe. For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I suspect we'll be moving straight from teasers to "you are not capable of understanding my brilliance" without a pause for actual content.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2015,12:23

To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.

And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one, they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design.

ETA: Brabazoon is what I thought but what I had in mind was the Spruce Goose.

Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,12:41

Are we there yet?
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 01 2015,13:00

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,20:23)

To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.

And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one,they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design.

Gary has always been a bit paranoid and believes his illusions are real but this new phenomena you are alluding to is full blown schizoid replication. Could Postcardo be Gary's Oriental quantum doppelganger?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,14:27

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,14:35

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,09:37)

What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?Give 3 examples to support your definition.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering any given entity, process, or event 'intelligent'?

What evidence supports your various assertions, such as the alleged fact that the theory of evolution as 'ruled out' intelligence, in any form?

The question is under what conditions, for what items, is 'intelligence' a factor which must be considered as a possible element?

What evidence exists that 'intelligence' in your specific meaning could or should be taken to be a factor in, say, the origin of species in all cases?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, you really don't know the real intelligence and yet you have a nerve to call my new discoveries utterly nonsense!

What is that!

I need an apology first before I answer you since you accused me of something that I did not do.

Or present here your alternative explanation of intelligence since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

Choose...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,14:37

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,09:32)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien. Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe. For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm reaching you but it seems that ToE's deep influenced had really messed your intellectual minds..

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.

And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one, they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design.

You are talking the wrong intelligence. There are almost 60+ definitions of intelligence, as published in arxiv.org...

Search it online and you will see how ToE had messed the topic of intelligence.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,14:43

The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,14:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)

MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms

an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..

an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen

a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious

a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism

a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,14:47

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)

The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, since you claimed that my new discovery and explanation of intelligence is incoherent, then, you have in your mind the coherent "intelligence".

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

I need the universal intelligence, simple and scientific and give me one empirical evidence. If your intelligence is not universal to be used for ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT, stop sharing it since it is already invalid.

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,15:08

You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

Cranks are supposed to be amusing and entertaining. That's why I ask, when do you start?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,15:11

Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 01 2015,06:41)

From the Uncommonly Dense thread, Mr.IntelligentDesign wrote:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------LOL!!!

I've been living here in Japan for 23 years! NO ENGRISH EVERIDI! I am here in the land of the Rising Sun!

Thus, forgive me for my bad grammars but I think most of my posts are understandable. I wish that you or anyone of you who has perfect grammars could discover the real intelligence, but this discovery was put onto my shoulder. What should I do? I had to do it alone since you never yet buy my science books or send me grants for support. SEND ME GRANTS, TAXES and SUPPORTS and I will reedit all my books to satisfy your language. And see how those discoveries could blow your scientific and intellectual minds!

But one thing I can sure of: I maybe have bad grammars but I have the best science. That is for sure for if now, why should I waste my time here claiming something??? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've offered this before, winner/winfield/MrIntelligentDesign - Send me your Japanese text, and I'll have Daughter #2 translate it. It will take longer than when I first offered, several years ago, since she's working in the cardio/ortho surgery suite at a hospital in Wisconsin. (She left Apple about the time you stopped regular posting at CARM.)

romanji, please, since I can't be sure how kanji will come across when printed.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I don't believe in your offer for if you are really willing to learn new discoveries and new science, you had already bought my science books and write a rebuttal or alternative explanation for the universal intelligence and publish it in Amazon. Remember that you have the best grammars.

I am not in a hurry. As along as my family is safe knowing the real intelligence, I don't care others.

I wish that your kids and grand kids will not ask you this question:

"Dad or Grandpa, if you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?"

or any variation of that question...

To answer that question scientifically, you will surely come to me. That is why, you must train your kids not to ask simple questions in science to avoid me.

Thus, no thanks..I wrote science books to document my new discoveries. TAKE THEM or LEAVE them...but to leave them without knowing intelligence is too dangerous for you...

But I don't care, that is your life...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,15:13

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,15:08)

You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

Cranks are supposed to be amusing and entertaining. That's why I ask, when do you start?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then, no problem. You will get no answer. Take my new discoveries or leave them..that is not my problem anymore.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 01 2015,15:17

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)

MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms

an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..

an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen

a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious

a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism

a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Right, so you have no idea and are just guessing. Your "evidence and objective explanation" is "it's obvious".

Wow.

To me, it is obvious you are just making stuff up.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,15:17

I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 01 2015,15:23

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,16:05)

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:57)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)

The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So, since you claimed that my new discovery and explanation of intelligence is incoherent, then, you have in your mind the coherent "intelligence".

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

I need the universal intelligence, simple and scientific and give me one empirical evidence. If your intelligence is not universal to be used for ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT, stop sharing it since it is already invalid.

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Staggeringly wrong-headed.

We know quite well, with countless examples available, that one need not know a coherent theory of x to be able to recognize that the purported theory is incoherent.Incoherence can include a wide variety of particular problems. Incoherence in definition vis a vis example cases, incoherence in logical form, incoherence in word usage, with jargon, technical language, or standard form of the language used, etc.

The absence of "the universal intelligence, simple and scientific, with empirical evidence" definition or example could trivially easily be taken to be prima facie evidence that there is no such thing. Things that exist generally guide appropriate language definition and construction as well as example cases in the ongoing development of any given language.

So, we're still waiting for you to come up with a coherent definition and/or example for intelligence.Be a dear and include a listing of the necessary and sufficient conditions for whatever intelligence turns out to be under your definition.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,15:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:17)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)

MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.

Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms

an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..

an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen

a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious

a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism

a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Right, so you have no idea and are just guessing. Your "evidence and objective explanation" is "it's obvious".

Wow.

To me, it is obvious you are just making stuff up.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

LOL!!!

What are you talking about???
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 01 2015,15:52

You tell me. I just quoted you.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying the RESULT of intelligence or that these things ARE intelligent?

There's a problem though if you think that the results of intelligence are some defining. Because, again, we have only one example of an intelligence (though for some members of that group, we have to use the term very loosely). So again, you're drawing a conclusion from a sample size of one... which is not a really good thing to do.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 01 2015,16:05

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)

The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient T.A.R.D addicts.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient T.A.R.D addicts.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

FTFY. The struggle is real.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I fear that overdose may be a real danger here.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 01 2015,17:45

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,09:32)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien. Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe. For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm reaching you but it seems that ToE's deep influenced had really messed your intellectual minds..

Now, did you understand my OP?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Those who don't want to follow this thread may just have a look < here > and < here >. MrIntelligentDesign's comments at Amazon cleary show that this thread will not even be entertaining or amusing.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

IMO it doesn't make sense to invest in this discussion when the usual suspects fighting Tard Throne over at UD don't even ignore him. It's just unreadable BS which doesn't make sense at all and I am sorry I kind of invited him.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 02 2015,03:10

Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 02 2015,03:51

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,21:17)

I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh, oh, me sir! Me me sir!

This is Fitzwilliam Square in Dublin.

The women in the picture are going around the square.

Can I have a gold star sir? Please?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,04:48